Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
unclep2k said:
I don't think that's silly. Lenr is starting to become accepted now, and it probably doesn't take great courage anymore to take a look, but the guys that stuck with it right after the great debunking are true heros if this ever becomes a world energy source.
Click to expand...

Most rational people don't take technological advances on faith. This is what Rossi is expecting everyone to do. No thanks.
 
Horatius said:
And you cold say the same thing about straight-up perpetual motion devices, which is what the example I mentioned was, and what the Steorn Orbo was. And yet, in both cases, they had real scientists taking a serious look at their claims. How is it that "cold fusion" is so much more risky than perpetual motion?
Click to expand...

And how many of those real scientists then came out in support of those claims? NONE! In my opinion just taking a look is not a big deal. But when one then comes out in support of these claims he is certainly sticking his neck out big time. Don't tell me about people who take looks. Tell me about the reputable scientists that actually go on to support these claims.
 
Horatius said:
That some do look isn't the issue. He's trying to paint that looking as some great act of courage in the face of massive attempts at suppressing such enquiries, which is just plain silly.
Click to expand...

WRONG!! WRONG!! It should have been clear to you that these people did a lot more than just look. They then offered their support for the idea or at least indicated they could find no reason to refute Rossi.
 
Aepervius said:
"
When normal procurement are involved, then it is a stink normal negociation and you do not need a special persons, no more special to any other type of procuration, and almost certainly somebody already in the industry is 1000 more useful than an ex ambasssador or using illegal or underhanded means.
Click to expand...
I 'm sorry - I absolutely don't understand what you're saying here. Lobbying, political consultancy, fixing, call it what you will, is a ubiquitous and unexceptionable fact-of-life for any legitimate business above a certain size. I cannot believe an adult European is unaware of that. Do you imagine that Deutsch Bank or BP don't employ fixers? It's a good bet, in my view, that Stremmenos fills the role of political consultant in the Defkalion line-up. Somebody has to, in any case.

I believe that view to be unexceptionable and innocouous. It impinges not at all upon the technical minutiae at issue on the forum. Certainly nobody else on the forum has stepped up to contest it. I cannot for the life of me understand your persistent, unreasonable hostility towards the idea, and, I have to tell you, I find your continued sneering intransigence to verge upon discourtesy. In particular your reference to "conspiracy theories" is a clear ad hominem. I have, I believe, afforded you unfailing courtesy thus far. Would you be good enough to reciprocate?
 
Last edited:
unclep2k said:
That evidence claim was observed and measured by others although I understand you don't accept it.
Click to expand...

Because those others did not take the basic device with instructions, and wire and instrument it independently. In the wiring and the preparation for the demonstration is where the fraud usually lies.

John W. Keeley had elaborate "fusion" energy machines (for he claimed - at times - to be converting Hydrogen to Helium) and some very reputable people examined them in detail (but without dis-assembly) and never detected that the true genius of Keeley was his ability to bore long channels though seemingly too-thin metal rods and so to deliver very high pressure condensed air to his apparatus. This was all discovered after his death.

See;

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely-h.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ernst_Worrell_Keely

Like CNF, there are those who believe still that Keeley had solved the energy problem, and that the secret died with him, or was covered up by generations of scientists.
 
In the earlier post I said there it a chance of amazing trickery. I am not 100 percent convinced myself of Rossi's invention because some things are not known to me, but I am certainly rooting for him.
 
BenBurch said:
never detected that the true genius of Keeley was his ability to bore long channels though seemingly too-thin metal rods and so to deliver very high pressure condensed air to his apparatus. This was all discovered after his death.
Click to expand...

$5 million was quite an achievement in 1872.

A fool and his money are welcome anywhere, anytime.:rolleyes:
 
Why are you guys wasting your time in this forum. Get to work on your invention to separate a fool and his money.
 
And I have to get to work if I want to eat. I don't have an invention either. You guys are going to have to wait till later to beat on me.
 
Thon Brocket said:
I 'm sorry - I absolutely don't understand what you're saying here. Lobbying, political consultancy, fixing, call it what you will, is a ubiquitous and unexceptionable fact-of-life for any legitimate business above a certain size.
Click to expand...

Bribery and fixing as you like to call it, I call that breaking the law, happens in a relatively low number of cases, a minority. If you think otherwise, the Conspiracy forum is not this one. Go back to the index you will find it there.

If you wish to continue that discussion on using illegal means I recommend that you do another thread and ask the forum mods to merge the concerning post of this thread.

But for me the discussion (or should I say the derail) in this thread is over, as it is almost certainly disturbing the Rossi/cold fusion discussion. Especially for something which hasn't been demonstrated to even exists or not be a scam like Rossi's stuff.

PS: Your argument could as well as been used for Steorn or BLP, and i call it putting the cart before the horse. First you demonstrate there is *SOMETHING* to sell then you might be concerned on whether it will be sold in a legal framework or not.
 
Last edited:
Thon Brocket said:
I've acknowledged that - I believe courteously - two or three times already. I expressly stated it to be the case in the very first line of my first post in this discussion and I have subsequently reiterated it. I find myself beginning to get just a little warm under the collar that you will not acknowledge that acknowledgement, and continue to address me on that basis.

That a government CAN rob you is a truism. Please read that sentence carefully and refrain from stating or implying in any reply you make to me that I don't understand or accept that that is the case.

I make a separate and distinct point - that a government MAY elect NOT to rob you; to rob you of a little or everything; to rob you by taxation or confiscation or regulation or corruption; or to accomplish its ends by fining you or imprisoning you or exiling you or murdering you; publicly and by the rules, or by stealth at dead of night. Its policies and actions are vastly complex and opaque, its weltumschau wholly cynical and self-interested and its practitioners commonly corrupt and incompetent. And so clever and experienced and well-connected men like, I am sure, Stremmenos can and do use the dark political mazes to influence, coax, bribe, persuade (but not, I ask you to note, coerce) state policy to the advantage of their clients. Whatever your opinion may be, such an ability is a most saleable commodity; particularly to such a promising target for state rapacity as Rossi's thingummyjig represents. It is my opinion, and I advance it only as an opinion, that Stremmenos fulfills this function. Consider also that even if the enterprise is fraudulent, the utility of a fixer - the "white cushion" of the Sicilian brotherhoods - remains.

I ask you to direct your no-doubt powerful intellect to the clear distinction between the two separate points I have just enumerated. So far, in this entertaining exchange of ideas, you have persistently confused or conflated the two. Your reasons for doing so remain unclear to me; but if you find yourself at this point still unable to apprehend the distinction kindly do not address me again.

As to usage, in the Middle East at least, and to a lesser extent in the Anglosphere, the word "fixer", and indeed the concept it denotes, is current. If it offends you, substitute "political consultant" or even "PR man". It is simply a label; the function it denotes remains unaffected.

You're wrong about the "heroin" thing, incidentally. "Fix" is current. To my knowledge "fixer" is not in use in that context. Just sayin'.

Finally, for the record, I repeat that I take no position on the validity of Rossi's claims, and am content to abide the outcome of his October demonstration.
Click to expand...

Well written, clear, polite but firm. Bravo!:)

Cheers,

Dave
 
Why are you guys wasting your time in this forum. Get to work on your invention to separate a fool and his money.
Click to expand...

I've got USD$400 riding on the belief that this is a fake (I gave my friend 4:1 odds) so I'm motivated to see how this develops :-)

As an aside, something that hasn't been discussed here is Rossi's motivations. Apparently he will devote half his earning to cancer research. It is a bit strange that someone so obviously altruistic doesn't want to become the most famous scientist in the world (the next Einstein) and immeasurably reduce global poverty world-wide. And prevent many wars that are fought over resources. How much money does he need? Even if every government stole his invention without reparations (unlikely) he'd still be one of the most important famous people in the world and could easily parlay this into immense riches. I'm not a conspiracy theory buff, but to those who are, don't you think that by keeping his invention secret he is greatly increasing the chance that his invention will be buried by "big oil" or what not?
 
attaboy said:
And how many of those real scientists then came out in support of those claims? NONE! In my opinion just taking a look is not a big deal. But when one then comes out in support of these claims he is certainly sticking his neck out big time. Don't tell me about people who take looks. Tell me about the reputable scientists that actually go on to support these claims.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose none of them came out in support of Steorn after taking a look? Could it be because it was not what it claimed to be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom